Monday, May 25, 2015

Going: Oakfield - The Latest

The elections are over, both the locals in 2014 and the nationals in 2015.

And we are back to where we were in 2013, just before the then Cabinet Member referred the Local Plan back to officers to come up with alternatives to developing the Oakfield site. The results of the consultation are now published and the recommendation is …. to go ahead as planned in 2013.

This will be discussed at the Neighbourhoods and Communities Service Committee on Wednesday 3rd June and then go to (we presume) a special Full Council meeting on 11th June, which was announced at the last Full Council but does not as yet appear on the meetings calendar.

The agenda and papers for the Service committee are published here.

The full report, a 15Mb PDF is here.

And the Appendix 3 (The Recommended Plan) a 27Mb PDF is here.

UPDATE 4th June: The Local Plan will not now go to an extraordinary Full Council on 11th June but will return with a further report to the Neighbourhoods And Communities Service Committee at a later date to be determined. See Redbridge statement here.


  1. well Redbridge council are going to try everything to claw back the money they have lost in the 1.5 million pound housing fraud (daily mail today) that they have just lost..there is no way they are going to get any back

    1. You and the Mail are both a bit behind the times - this was reported on Redbridge i on May 19th ...

    2. Yes. It is perhaps appropriate to also point out that the Fraud was against central government and it was they who *lost* the £1.5m, not Redbridge Council

    3. The Councils fraud team uncovered the fraud, a new type by all accounts, and they can claim some money back from the Govt dept, but the remainder will be central govt loss as it's actually fraud against them. So doubtful the Council had decided on development plans with this in mind over the last few months.

    4. so the whole country looses then...even worse,,,the sheer fact that our goverment has allowed the system to be this easy is a joke and its all down to the fact that the tenant is paid the money and not the landlord direct,and Mr knowsie...some of us are busy carers and do not read the news all the time as we are busy, and do not need the worry of the threat of loosing a very needed carers payment to be taken away if our council thinks the family income is too high and this being requested by a man who owns 15 properties in this borough and is probably on the prowl for more......i am assuming ......(not factual) as some can not tell the difference nowadays.

  2. To build on this section of land is total luncay! It is a flood plane and not only that being a problem, the concentration of over 800 properties will submerge the infrastructure into a cesspit which will be impossible to resurface. The roundabout at Fullwell Cross is a health hazzard, being one of the most air-polluted in the country and all the prospective added vehicle transit can only add further to the misery of the already congested places in rush hour or when King Solomon's school students are being picked up or delivered. There are times one cannot even get out of one's own front garden on Forest Road because of the continual string of traffic coming from around the Fullwell Cross roundabout or those making Forest Road a rat run from the Woodford Road. Those who make such decisions neither live in the vicinity nor have the sense they were born with to condone such planning.

  3. well labour run council......this is what you get all pretending to do good for the people yet probably lining their own pockets pretending to be socialists...just look at the so called "leftist" BBC

  4. Friends of Oakfield8:51 pm, May 25, 2015

    Things have moved at a remarkable speed since the General Election! Amazing isn’t it. They are short-cutting the process.

    Firstly, a meeting at the Ford Ground, called to consult users, was attended by precisely NO clubs! SOS are trying to find out how that happened. SOS suspect it was called at very short notice.

    Secondly, the Council are bringing forward the decision re the Four Options for the Local Plan to an Extraordinary Council Meeting on the 11th June (instead of dealing with it in July’s normal full Council meeting)! Being an Extraordinary meeting the public are not allowed to ask questions or make representations. Scandalous!!

    SOS have been told that the agenda is to “consider and agree to publish, and to request pre-submission consultation on, the draft Redbridge local Plan 2015-2030, to be followed by submission of the draft Plan to the Secretary of State for public examination.”

    SOS will be calling on everyone to please help at the 3rd June meeting of the Neighbourhoods and Communities Services Committee and attend the Extraordinary Meeting on the 11th June. The more seated in the gallery the better.

    1. Am I correct from your message that you would approve of building on Fords Social Clubs pitches and grounds? I'm very much of the opinion that we build nothing at all, we tell the powers that we don't want to build a single flat, house or anything else in the Borough and lets just live with what we have. Although my rational side knows full well if we do that then development work will have no local voice and be completely out of our hands. Believe it or not, and I've attended quite a few planning committees in Redbridge, we actually do have a say currently and can put planners to task if there is an application that doesn't fit with the local plan.

      Considering the consultation took place about 6 months ago, I would hardly consider having Council meetings in June, 'remarkable speed', nor should an extraordinary meeting worry you and I, since we can attend the service committee, where this matter will actually be agreed or disagreed.

    2. No Jack, we would not approve of building on any high quality sports facility or green space in active use for the benefit of the community.

      As you point out the 6 week consultation took place 6 months ago and then.......nothing.

      Election over and here we are. No notification to interested parties (hence no-one attended the meeting at Fords) and we hear about it through the press and the grapevine.

      The greatest objections have been raised to the Oakfields proposal but that is the one going forward. Oakfields passed into public ownership in the 1930s with Green Belt status and protective covenants. Redbridge now owns it and wants to remove Green Belt status and protections so it can sell it.

      Yes, we will be at the meeting on the 3rd to again put forward wide ranging and reasoned arguments but does anyone expect the administration's majority on this committe to break ranks? Then does anyone expect that same majority to break ranks on the 11th when the public are not allowed to speak inspite of SOS being told previously they could speak at a full Council on the issue?

      Democracy in action.

  5. One major issue that seems to have been bypassed is the impact of Crossrail and the incorporation of the Liverpool street - Enfield - Chingford services into London Overground.

    If there are "fair fares" then the need for people to live near where they work is mitigated by being half-an-hour away from South London for example by train .... a short commute.

    This must surely reduce demand for housing locally notwithstanding families who wish to move into the Borough's education catchment ... to which there is no easy answer.

  6. i would also like to remind our council that two perfectly good pieces of land have been given up for a muslim graveyard (five oaks lane) and a "community centre" in forest road next to the industrial site,both would have been ideal for housing...

  7. How is it that the new administration is bashed over something the last Tory driven administration instigated.
    Would they never had seen it through,I doubt it.
    The old adage careful what you wish for!
    Its easy to play the blame game...but in this case the blame started with the Tory cllrs and they should share the guilt if it is such a travesty!

  8. Like it or lump it, that is democracy in action. We elected the Councillors and now they administer. You might be in bed with the current opposition but this was their plan all along. A quote from Ian Bond, the previous deputy leader of the Council, "had the Conservatives won the election they were going to push ahead with the local plan, including Oakfield"

    Looks like they will replace the pitches, therefore sports users will not be losing out. Re the consultation, once it was over and therefore being assessed and reports written, did you really expect it to be rushed out before the election? Remember there is a 6-7 week purdah period before the election where contentious issues cannot be published. I think paranoia has overtaken logic in some of your concerns.

    As I say, we either build or we don't, the pollution, traffic etc will be the same if the homes are built elsewhere too. So are you against all development, I would be, or just where YOU don't want it?

    1. Hi Jack,
      That is not, strictly speaking, correct.
      The Sustainability rules within the Planning Guidelines are specifically designed to reduce car dependence although that in itself does not necessarily reduce car use. That is, sites located in the near vicinity of good public transport hubs and shopping centres. The Oakfield site does meet these criteria but then so do other nearby green belt sites - unlike the other remote green belt site in Five Oaks Lane that is also being developed with 450 homes.

    2. Hi Wiggis, Five oaks, where the homes are being built, has only been allowed because it replaces what is already there and not building on 'new' land. The rights and wrongs can be argued, but that's why it's been given permission. I doubt other green belt sites, ie those that are still considered to be doing the job of green belt would be released for development ( in the short to medium term ) Oakfield on the other had can. In terms of my previous post, I should clarify, 800 homes at Oskfield which has or will have all the infrastructure would be less polluting than increasing density in other pockets of the Borough to fulfil the numbers.

    3. That is true. It is also, as I understand it, the Redbridge Conservative group's "new" position, ie that Oakfield is only 5% of the total and could easily be accommodated by "slightly" increasing density around Barley Lane KGH and Goodmayes hospital sites, which btw are also green belt ...